I am going to be upgrading before my next trip to Anilao with Scott's group this comng April. For the last 2 years I have been using a Nauticam housing for my LX5. I am primariy interested in macro work. I'm considering equiping my 7d. I also have the 100mm (older non IS) and the 10-22mm. i would prefer to use what I have but know the costs of the ports and domes can easily exceed the cost of the lenses. I don't want to be making any major purchases for some time after this upgrade. It appears that the 100mm IS might be a little better then the non IS version, but from what i have read here there isn't a consenses if the new L is that much better than what i already have, so I may just stick with it. What about the 10-22? The Tokina 10-17mm seems to be the more popular wide angle. Unfortunately it doesn't look like any of the ports or dome for the 10-22 can be used with the Tokina. Do you consider the 10-22 wide enough for general wide angle work?

My other option is to get Olympus OM D and sell off my 7d. This option would initially be more expensive because I would have to purchase the camera and lenses in additon to everything else. I could pay for it by selling the 7d along with my 17-55, 70-200, 100-400, two sigma's 30 and 50mm and the two i mentoned above. As you can see over the years I have collected some nice glass and am apprehensive about switching systems. Does this sound like a crazy thing to do?

I would see no reason to go out and buy a new camera, lenses etc when you already have all that glass!

Now, the 100mm, IS vs non IS, I'd say that for underwater work the IS is not all that interesting since you are almost always shooting very fast shutter-speeds when doing macro anyways, I mean, how often do you do a 1/10 sec exposure with a 100mm? Also since we always use strobes to expose our macro subjects, the IS makes even less sense, the IS was (correct me if I'm wrong) made to do handheld exposures on land without flash.
Stick with your 100mm USM, great lens!

For the wide-angle, I only tried out the 10-22 briefly (for a single dive) and I liked it, its for sure a good lens, would be good for photographing divers, wrecks, sharks etc, basically subjects where you don't want the massive barrel-distortion of a fisheye lens like the Tokina 10-17.

What I love about the 10-17 is the option to put it in a mini-dome. It makes "close focus wide angle" lighting so much easier and allows you to get really close to critters such as large frogfish, seahorses, scorpionfish, anemone fish etc. Another nice thing about a minidome is that its, well, small and therefore great to travel with.

I was just looking through some lens charts from aquatica, and you can actually fit the 10-17 and 10-22 behind the same dome, check it out here: http://www.aquatica....anon_type_2.pdf
According to this chart the 10-17 and the 10-22 should both work behind the 6" dome.

With the 6" dome of course CFWA becomes increasingly difficult, but should still be sort of ok.

The Nauticam 8inch dome will fit both the tokina & the canon 10-22 lenses. It is the spacer that is different for each lens.
The tokina & canon lenses are two different lenses so depending on what you want to shoot as to what lens to go for.
I have just purchased a 7D & nauticam setup & have the 10-22 lens but have only taken it underwater once & it is plenty wide.
Cheers pete.

Owner of Down Under Aquatic Imaging. Stockist of Gates/Subal/Archon/Flip3.1www.duai.com.au

I think the 6" dome will be great, as far as I understand Its not always a case of the bigger the better.
I should probably mention that I am by no means an expert in dome-port optics but what I know is that the length of your extension ring (ring that goes between housing and dome) is extremely important for overall sharpness/ability to focus (see the lens chart).

I always shoot with the 10-17 and a very small 4" dome and I love it, because of the strong curvature of the small dome you do get unsharp image corners at high apertures. If you want to have the corners tack sharp then you need to stop down to f.8 or lower, but then again, how important is it really that the corners are totally 100% sharp?
Hehe, think of that gorgeous shark over-under shot with the one eye above the surface, teeth clearly showing, almost bumping the dome with his snout, while the sun is setting in the background, now tell me if you really care about having tack-sharp corners

As far as I can see, the only major disadvantage of using a small dome such as my 4" mini-dome is that over-unders are basically impossible to get right, for that you need a bigger dome, I believe a 8" or even a 9,5" is preferred by most.
With a 8" or 9,5" dome of course then it would be impossible/very hard to get close-focus-wide-angle shots of critters :/
It seems there is never a perfect choice that is great for everything but I guess the 6" dome is a good choice to start out with!

7D with the Canon 100 (non-IS) was my setup of choice in Anilao last June. Coupled with the Aquatica +10 diopter, I was getting good images of teeny tiny critters...ie rice grain sized nudis. You can use the 10-22 behind the Aquatica 6" dome, the main difference is the extension ring and the zoom gear over the one used for the Tokina. If you use the 10-22, you'll need the 18462 extension and the 18696 zoom gear. If you use the 10-17, it's the 18453 extension and the 18717 zoom gear. I've shot splits using the 6" dome in calm water.

Even if a 7Dmk2 were to come out, you'll be waiting easily till the summer till a new housing is ready for it.